Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral specifics beyond annotations: bounded README excerpt, detected KiCad version, capability flags, and the instruction not to invent a board. This is useful context without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences cover usage triggers, return contents, and routing to sibling tools with no filler. The structure front-loads the when-to-use condition and each sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for an agent to select and call the tool: it gives input forms, output categories, discovery method, and follow-up tool routing. The output schema covers the detailed return structure, so no critical information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description already covers the parameter at 100%, including the accepted input forms and the 'search_boards' discovery route. The description mostly restates this guidance, adding only the 'do not invent one' caution, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Returns its metadata, a bounded README excerpt, tags, license, source EDA format...') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by directing design-detail needs to read_schematic, get_bom, or list_board_files. This is a clear, non-tautological definition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The first sentence states explicit trigger conditions: when the user names a specific public board, gives a URL, or picks a search_boards result. It also provides alternatives for follow-up actions ('chain to read_schematic...'), making the choice boundary explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.